Woody Harrelson in one of his many morally twisted misadventures in "RAMPART".
For the second time in three years actor Woody Harrelson collaborates with fresh directorial talent Oren Moverman, tackling. However, unlike their first team-up, 2009’s “The Messenger”, “Rampart” isn’t an emotionally organic narrative so much as it is a series of sketches illustrating how corrupt and deranged its protagonist is.
“Rampart” has been advertised as wielding the “most corrupt cop you’ve ever seen”. False. Nicolas Cage’s nutty junkie of a badge in 2009’s “Bad Lieutenant” remake, one of my favorites of the last decade, dug a little deeper and made me laugh a lot harder.
Not to discredit Woody Harrelson’s work as seedy Los Angeles cop Dave Brown — Harrelson chomps Moverman’s script to bits and spits it out with plentiful venom and cigarette smoke. It almost makes me guilty to enjoy so thoroughly a violent, drunken sex-addict of a man, but Harrelson’s tongue is planted partially in-cheek at all times. Harrelson is having a blast, even if it clearly comes at the expense of the characters surrounding him.
He is the energy, delirium and insanity of “Rampart”. But even he can’t supply it with a dosage of humanity. Harrelson’s rampage through Los Angeles streets and courtrooms loses its novelty at around the 45 minute mark and the end result is a film more repetitive than truly involving.
Moverman surrounds Dave Brown with a competent group to mess with — Sigourney Weaver pops her head in as a grizzled department-chief, Robin Wright plays one of Dave’s many sexual endeavors, Ben Foster as a homeless addict in an amusing “Messenger” reunion, and Ice Cube as a private investigator driven to bring Dave down. They all deliver very solid work, and the fact that Ice Cube has gone from rapping songs like “F–k Tha Police” to a mild-mannered movie career will always amuse me.
“Rampart” is a film whose main thesis seems to be, ‘Hey guys, this is a really bad man.’. We understand that from the second he comes on-screen. The film’s remainder serves as more of an exclamation-point to that thesis, rather than validly exploring it. C
